Are biofuels pro-poor? Assessing the evidence

Abstract

Biofuels are back in vogue. They are an attractive substitute for petroleum fuels, representing a relatively low cost alternative. In response to the 1970s oil crises a small number of countries began biofuel programmes, Brazil having the most extensive and well known programme resulting in ethanol being produced commercially as a fuel. Since the turn of the millennium, a number of forces have combined together to promote biofuel production once more: fuel security, high oil prices; environmental concerns linked to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect; rural development and poverty reduction. This paper reviews the evidence as to whether or not biofuels are pro-poor by assessing the impacts on land use (including food security), the local environment, jobs and gender equality. The paper concludes that biofuels are a technical system and it is the institutional structure rather than the technology which determines whether or not biofuels are pro-poor.

Les biocarburants sont de nouveau à la mode. Ils représentent une alternative séduisante aux carburants d'origine pétrolière, étant donné leur coût relativement bas. Face aux crises pétrolières des années 1970, quelques pays ont lancé des programmes en matière de biocarburants. Le plus important et le plus connu, celui du Brésil, a conduit à la production commerciale d'éthanol. Depuis le nouveau millénaire, un certain nombre de facteurs ont à nouveau favorisé l'essor des biocarburants: la sécurité du combustible, la hausse du prix du pétrole, les préoccupations environnementales liées à l'effet de serre, le développement rural et la réduction de la pauvreté. Cette étude analyse les arguments qui visent à prouver si les biocarburants sont pro-pauvres ou non, en évaluant les impacts sur les pratiques d'utilisation de la terre (y compris la sécurité alimentaire), l'environnement local, l'emploi et l'égalité des genres. L'article conclut que les biocarburants sont un système technique et que c'est la structure institutionnelle plutôt que la technologie qui détermine si oui ou non les biocarburants sont pro-pauvres.

Keywords:

• biofuels
• rural poverty

Notes

 1. Biofuels are liquid fuels derived from organic matter (biomass). The most well known biofuels are ethanol (a petrol substitute) and vegetable oils (which substitute for diesel and are known as biodiesel. Biofuels are a subset of bioenergy which consists of a range of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels derived from biomass.

 2. Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Philippines and Thailand.

 3. The world fuel ethanol production in 2006 was 38,200 million litres while world biodiesel production was 6153 million litres. Brazil was responsible for 41.1% of global ethanol production and was the second leading producing nation, while Malaysia was the seventh leading producer of biodiesel with 2.2% of the market (Worldwatch Institute 2007).

 4. Tropical biomass is on average five times more productive than temperate biomass (Johnson and Yamba 2005).

 5. The definition of ‘the poor’ as a concept is ambiguous and the implicit meaning tends to reflect the scientific background of the user, for example, economists may use levels of income while social scientists may use broader indicators such as health. In this paper, no rigorous definition is offered, instead when referring to ‘the poor’ the term is meant to encompasses rural dwellers not only with a lack of well-being (Dasgupta 1993, quoted in Ellis 2000, p. 77) but also whose assets, for example of land, labour or cash, are at such a level that they constrained to make investments in securing a sustainable livelihood, including participation in biofuels projects (Reardon and Vosti 1995; Ellis 2000).

 6. Editorial, ‘Biofuels: Let's look before we leap’, Science and Development Network 6 December 2007, www.scidev.net/editorials

 7. Brazil was considered the exception since bioethanol is already a commercial product there.

 8. ‘First-generation feedstocks’ include sugar crops such as sugar cane, sugar beets and sweet sorghum; starch crops such as maize, wheat, barley, cassava and sorghum grain; and oilseed crops such as rapeseed, soybeans, palm oil, jatropha, sunflower, and mustard seed. The sugar and starch crops produce bioethanol and the seed crops produce biodiesel. ‘Second-generation feedstocks’ are those that produce cellulosic biomass, such as perennial woody plants and grasses. All of the plant growth can be converted into biofuels whereas for first-generation feedstocks only a fraction of the plant material forms a fuel feedstock. Second-generation feedstocks are therefore considered more efficient since they give a higher yield of biofuel per hectare compared to first-generation feedstocks. However, the technology is not as readily available for second-generation feedstocks as it is for first generation. There is now discussion about ‘third-generation feedstocks’ which are water-based organisms such as algae. However, there is little practical experience with ‘farming’ such organic material so these feedstocks are a long-term development.

 9. Peskett et al. (2007) consider net food consuming households to be the majority of rural households.

10. Alternatively the land could be dedicated to food production.

11. Up to 15 litres of stillage per litre of ethanol (Clancy 1991).

12. The authors give no data for the actual numbers of women entering the workforce at that time.

13. Sachs I. quoted in An In-depth look at Brazil's Social Seal Fuel, 2007. http://biopact.com/2007/03/in-depth-look-at-brazils-social-fuel.html

14. http://biopact.com/2007/03/in-depth-look-at-brazils-social-fuel.html

15. www.fsc.org

16. The authors do not define ‘small’.